| 1 |
benhoob |
1.1 |
\section{Limits on New Physics}
|
| 2 |
|
|
\label{sec:limit}
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
%As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:results}, we see one event
|
| 5 |
|
|
%in the signal region.
|
| 6 |
|
|
%The background prediction from the SM MC is
|
| 7 |
|
|
%1.3 events.
|
| 8 |
|
|
%The data driven background predictions from the ABCD method
|
| 9 |
|
|
%and the $\pt(\ell\ell)$ method are $1.3 \pm 0.8({\rm stat}) \pm 0.3({\rm syst})$ and
|
| 10 |
|
|
%$2.1 \pm 2.1({\rm stat}) \pm 0.6({\rm syst})$ events, respectively.
|
| 11 |
|
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
%These three predictions are in good agreement with each other
|
| 13 |
|
|
%and with the observation of one event in the signal region.
|
| 14 |
|
|
%We calculate a Bayesian 95\% CL upper limit~\cite{ref:cl95cms}
|
| 15 |
|
|
%on the number of non SM events in the signal region to be 4.1,
|
| 16 |
|
|
%using a background prediction of $N_\textrm{BG}=1.4 \pm 0.8$
|
| 17 |
|
|
%events and a Gaussian model of nuissance parameter integration.
|
| 18 |
|
|
%The upper limit is not very sensitive to $N_\textrm{BG}$ and its uncertainty.
|
| 19 |
|
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
|
| 21 |
|
|
The three background predictions for the high-\pt\ lepton trigger search
|
| 22 |
|
|
discussed in Section~\ref{sec:results} are in good agreement with each other and
|
| 23 |
|
|
with the observation of one event in the signal region.
|
| 24 |
|
|
A Bayesian 95\%~confidence level (CL) upper limit~\cite{ref:cl95cms} on the number of
|
| 25 |
|
|
non-SM events in the signal region is determined to be 4.0,
|
| 26 |
|
|
using a background prediction of $N_\textrm{BG} = 1.4 \pm 0.8$
|
| 27 |
|
|
events and a log-normal model of nuisance parameter integration.
|
| 28 |
|
|
The upper limit is not very sensitive to $N_\textrm{BG}$ and its uncertainty.
|
| 29 |
|
|
This generic upper limit is not corrected for the possibility
|
| 30 |
|
|
of signal contamination in the control regions. This is justified because
|
| 31 |
|
|
the two independent background estimation methods based on data agree
|
| 32 |
|
|
and are also consistent with the SM MC prediction.
|
| 33 |
|
|
Moreover, no evidence for non-SM contributions in
|
| 34 |
|
|
the control regions is observed (Table~\ref{tab:datayield} and Figure~\ref{fig:victory}).
|
| 35 |
|
|
This bound rules out the benchmark SUSY scenario LM0, for which the
|
| 36 |
|
|
number of expected signal events is $8.6 \pm 1.6$, while the LM1 scenario predicts
|
| 37 |
|
|
$3.6 \pm 0.5$ events.
|
| 38 |
|
|
The uncertainties in the LM0 and LM1 event yields arise from energy scale, luminosity,
|
| 39 |
|
|
and lepton efficiency, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:systematics}.
|
| 40 |
|
|
|
| 41 |
|
|
For the same-flavour search using hadronic activity triggers discussed in Section~\ref{sec:HT},
|
| 42 |
|
|
no same-flavour events are observed and the corresponding Bayesian 95\% CL upper limit on the
|
| 43 |
|
|
non-SM yield is 3.0 events.
|
| 44 |
|
|
This bound rules out the benchmark SUSY scenarios LM0 and LM1, for which the
|
| 45 |
|
|
numbers of expected signal events are $7.3 \pm 1.6$ and $3.6 \pm 0.7$, respectively.
|
| 46 |
|
|
|
| 47 |
|
|
%As an example of the sensitivity of this search, we
|
| 48 |
|
|
%remind the reader that the number of expected signal events in the benchmark
|
| 49 |
|
|
%SUSY scenarios LM0 and LM1 are $8.6 \pm 1.6$ and $3.6 \pm 0.5$, respectively,
|
| 50 |
|
|
%where the uncertainties are from energy scale, luminosity, and lepton efficiency.
|
| 51 |
|
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
|
| 53 |
|
|
%Following text on CMSSM scan taken from RA1 paper
|
| 54 |
|
|
We also quote the result more generally in the context of the CMSSM.
|
| 55 |
|
|
The Bayesian 95\% CL limit in the $(m_0,m_{1/2})$ plane, for $\tan\beta=3$,
|
| 56 |
|
|
$A_0 = 0$ and $\mu > 0$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:msugra}.
|
| 57 |
|
|
The high-\pt\ lepton and hadronic trigger searches have similar sensitivity to the CMSSM;
|
| 58 |
|
|
here we choose to show results based on the high-\pt\ lepton trigger search. The
|
| 59 |
|
|
SUSY particle spectrum is calculated using SoftSUSY~\cite{Allanach:2002uq}, and the
|
| 60 |
|
|
signal events are generated at leading order (LO) with \PYTHIA6.4.22.
|
| 61 |
|
|
NLO cross sections, obtained with the
|
| 62 |
|
|
program Prospino~\cite{Beenakker:1997kx}, are used to calculate the observed
|
| 63 |
|
|
exclusion contour.
|
| 64 |
|
|
At each point in the $(m_0,m_{1/2})$ plane, the acceptance uncertainty is calculated by
|
| 65 |
|
|
summing in quadrature the uncertainties from jet and \MET\ energy scale using the
|
| 66 |
|
|
procedure discussed in Section~\ref{sec:systematics}, the uncertainty in the
|
| 67 |
|
|
NLO cross section due to the choice of factorization and renormalization scale,
|
| 68 |
|
|
and the uncertainty from the parton distribution function (PDF) for CTEQ6.6~\cite{Nadolsky:2008fk},
|
| 69 |
|
|
estimated from the envelope provided by the CTEQ6.6 error sets.
|
| 70 |
|
|
The luminosity uncertainty and dilepton
|
| 71 |
|
|
selection efficiency uncertainty are also included, giving a total relative acceptance uncertainty which varies
|
| 72 |
|
|
in the range 0.2--0.3.
|
| 73 |
|
|
%We consider a point excluded if the NLO yield exceeds the 95\% CL Bayesian upper limit
|
| 74 |
|
|
%calculated with this acceptance uncertainty, using a log-normal model for the nuisance
|
| 75 |
|
|
%parameter integration.
|
| 76 |
|
|
A point is considered to be excluded if the NLO yield exceeds the 95\% CL
|
| 77 |
|
|
Bayesian upper limit calculated with this acceptance uncertainty, using
|
| 78 |
|
|
a log-normal model for the nuisance parameter integration.
|
| 79 |
|
|
The limit curves do not include the effect of signal
|
| 80 |
|
|
contamination in the control regions. We have verified that this
|
| 81 |
|
|
has a negligible impact on the excluded regions in Figure~\ref{fig:msugra}.
|
| 82 |
|
|
|
| 83 |
|
|
\begin{figure}[tbh]
|
| 84 |
|
|
\begin{center}
|
| 85 |
|
|
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{plots_final/RA6_ExclusionLimit_tanb3_LO.pdf}
|
| 86 |
|
|
\caption{\label{fig:msugra}\protect
|
| 87 |
|
|
%Text taken from RA1 paper
|
| 88 |
|
|
The observed 95\% CL exclusion contour at NLO (solid red line) and LO (dashed blue line)
|
| 89 |
|
|
in the CMSSM $(m_0,m_{1/2})$ plane for $\tan\beta=3$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu > 0$.
|
| 90 |
|
|
The area below the curve is excluded by this measurement. Exclusion limits obtained from
|
| 91 |
|
|
previous experiments are presented as filled areas in the plot. Thin grey lines correspond to
|
| 92 |
|
|
constant squark and gluino masses.
|
| 93 |
|
|
%The plot also shows the two benchmark points LM0 and LM1 for comparison.
|
| 94 |
|
|
%Exclusion curve in the CMSSM parameter space,
|
| 95 |
|
|
%assuming $\tan\beta=3$, sign of $\mu = +$ and $A_{0}=0\GeVcc$.
|
| 96 |
|
|
}
|
| 97 |
|
|
\end{center}
|
| 98 |
|
|
\end{figure}
|
| 99 |
|
|
|
| 100 |
|
|
The excluded regions for the CDF
|
| 101 |
|
|
search for jets + missing energy final states~\cite{PhysRevLett.102.121801} were
|
| 102 |
|
|
obtained for $\tan\beta=5$, while those from D0~\cite{Abazov2008449} were obtained for
|
| 103 |
|
|
$\tan\beta=3$, each with approximately 2~fb$^{-1}$ of data and for $\mu < 0$.
|
| 104 |
|
|
The LEP-excluded
|
| 105 |
|
|
regions are based on searches for sleptons and charginos~\cite{LEPSUSY}.
|
| 106 |
|
|
%A comparison of the exclusion limit for tan b = 3 to that for tan b = 10
|
| 107 |
|
|
%for fixed values of A0 = 0 and sign(m) > 0 indicates that
|
| 108 |
|
|
%the exclusion reach is only weakly dependent on the value of tan b;
|
| 109 |
|
|
%the limit shifts by less than 20\GeV in m0 and by less than 10\GeV in
|
| 110 |
|
|
%m1/2.
|
| 111 |
|
|
The D0 exclusion limit, valid for $\tan\beta=3$ and obtained from
|
| 112 |
|
|
a search for associated production of charginos $\chi_{1}^{\pm}$ and
|
| 113 |
|
|
neutralinos $\chi_2^0$ in trilepton final states~\cite{Abazov200934}, is also
|
| 114 |
|
|
included in Figure~\ref{fig:msugra}. In contrast to the other limits presented in
|
| 115 |
|
|
Figure~\ref{fig:msugra}, the results of our search and of the trilepton search are strongly dependent on
|
| 116 |
|
|
the choice of $\tan\beta$ and they reach the highest sensitivity in the
|
| 117 |
|
|
CMSSM for $\tan\beta$ values below 10.
|
| 118 |
|
|
|
| 119 |
|
|
%We also performed a scan of the CMSSM parameter space. We set $\tan\beta=3$,
|
| 120 |
|
|
%sign of $\mu = +$, $A_{0}=0\GeVcc$, and scan the $m_{0}$ and $m_{1/2}$ parameters
|
| 121 |
|
|
%in steps of 10\GeVcc. At each point we calculate the acceptance uncertainty by
|
| 122 |
|
|
%summing in quadrature the uncertainties from jet and \MET\ energy scale using the
|
| 123 |
|
|
%procedure discussed in Section~\ref{sec:systematics} ($2-21$\%), the uncertainty in the
|
| 124 |
|
|
%NLO cross-section assessed by varying the factorization and renormalization scale
|
| 125 |
|
|
%by a factor of 2 ($12-15$\%), and the uncertainty from the parton density function (PDF)
|
| 126 |
|
|
%assessed by () ($X-X$\%). We also include the luminosity uncertainty (11\%) and dilepton
|
| 127 |
|
|
%selection efficiency uncertainty (5\%), giving a total acceptance uncertainty of $X-X$\%.
|
| 128 |
|
|
%For each scan point, we calculate a 95\% CL upper limit using a Bayesian technique
|
| 129 |
|
|
%using the observed signal yield (1 event), the acceptance uncertainty as calculated above, and
|
| 130 |
|
|
%the predicted background yield and uncertainty $N_\textrm{BG}=1.4 \pm 0.8$. The point is considered
|
| 131 |
|
|
%excluded if the NLO event yield exceeds this upper limit. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:msugra}.
|
| 132 |
|
|
|
